lumière des étoiles

children and some trees - what gives?
2003-08-12 10:08 p.m.

Most of Newark smelled like fish today.

Don't know why - and probably don't WANT to know why.

I spent the time my students were taking their final exam alternately staring out the window, at the condensation gathering in strange patterns, and reading an article about the "childlessness revolution" that seems to have "sprung up" amongst female hipsters and fashionistas in New York City - especially of the academic or professional persuasion.

Darn, and I wanted to have children. I'm never with the in crowd, no matter how hard I try.

I'm all for feminist critiques of our culture, but I have problems when people declare something a movement when it's been going on for decades. I also have a problem when the only interviewees are upper class white women who seem to be independently wealthy, especially if the interviewer then takes their data and makes claims about "most women" and "the majority of women today".

What has changed, most likely, that the interviewer failed to realize with her self-important rhetoric, is the fact that our society doesn't criminalize women who choose not to have children as much as it used to. It still goes on, believe me. I have countless friends who have made this declaration and are told "oh, you'll change your mind!", as if having a child is something you desire once you "grow up" and "stop being so self centered", or some other such ridiculousness.

But, I'm happy to say, though the pace has been glacial, I think most people feel less outcast if they decide that children are not for them. Women aren't viewed as "failures" if they don't have children - especially if they excel in their professional development. There are, however, still stereotypes that exist - these women must be child-haters, or cold-hearted, or very lonely; none of which are true.

The one good thing the interviewer did manage to pull together: "What a wonderful world this would be if the only children who were born were wanted children".

Someone fax a copy of that to the Bush Administration, FAST! Maybe they just never thought of things that way.

While I'm on it...oh don't get me started. Well, since you asked: Yet another EPA nightmare - Bush decided to stay in bed with the Timber industry by relaxing regulations on Forest Management and control, something that limits logging and preserves much needed natural resources and wildlife. He's citing forest fire safety as the reason - don't insult me.

From Greenpeace's website:

"Logging, along with global warming is one of the causes of these forest fires so the question is, where’s the sense, common or otherwise in President Bush’s forest agenda?"

Is there EVER sense?

Sigh.

My wonderful husband just made some me some Korma, and since I haven't eaten yet, you'll have to do with just this rant until I post again.

Night,